The Role of Religious Studies in Fantasy Films: A Literary Analysis of Lyden, Marsh, and Mullen.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Vilanova

REL3111 Religion and Film

April 28, 2007

Religion and Film Literature Review

The Role of Religious Studies in Fantasy Films: A Literary Analysis of Lyden, Marsh, and Mullen.

A common error made by critics, scholars, and religious personal is the mistake of tossing Fantasy aside as being the spawn of wishful thinking and sporadic imagination. While some may make this mistake of casting it aside at its face value, Christians sometimes make the greater mistake of labeling it as heresy, evil, and even demonic. Good fantasy couldn’t be any further from these common misconceptions. Fantasy is mainly expressive of the human condition, and it’s many religious undertones. To eliminate the possibility of religion playing a role in fantasy films is to make the mistake of interpreting the film as merely myth, without realizing it’s theological convictions. As Joseph Marty explains in a quotation found in John Lyden’s To Commend or To Critique? The Question of Religion and Film Studies, cinema:

“brings back to life the sense of mystery by making us love what is not immediately perceivable, what is beyond appearance and evidence. It suggest the invisible…Thus, cinema binds us again with the poetic and religious expression of humanity…Everything that is human, every relationship to the world and to nature, treated artistically by the cinema becomes a poem, a tale, a re-reading, a proposal of meaning, a celebration—in short, something that resembles a first religious step.”[1]

This is exactly what high fantasy, through theological and religious evaluation, can resemble to us.  This leads us to ask whether all fantasy films accomplish this, and whether there are exceptions. In addition, we must also ask ourselves how should we evaluate these fantasy films, and whether or not there is an approach that yields the ‘ripest fruits’. Throughout this literature review, we will examine the literary works of Eve L. Mullen[2], John Lyden[3], and Clive Marsh[4] to come to the conclusion that good fantasy may resemble “a first religious step”, as well as there being a particularly beneficial approach to interpreting and evaluating religion in fantasy film (as proposed by Clive Marsh). 

            Before we begin we must define several terms to aid in the understanding of the ending conclusions. As already noted, there seems to be an emphasis placed on the ‘High Fantasy’ and ‘Fantasy’ genre, but how do we define these two? To borrow from Reference.com’s online encyclopedia, Fantasy is defined as “a genre of art that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting.”[5] Breaking down this definition, we will look to define Fantasy Films as films with fantasy themes; such as magic, the supernatural, imaginary made-up creatures, and exotic make-believe worlds. Throughout the literature review, we will be discussing two specific genres within fantasy; High Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery Fantasy (also known as ‘Sword and Sandal’). We will borrow again from Reference’s website to define High Fantasy as:

“stories…generally serious in tone and often epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces. Typical characteristics… include…elves, dwarves, magic, wizards, invented languages, quests, coming-of-age themes, and multi-volume narratives.”[6]

Another genre that we will be comparing and contrasting is the Sword and Sorcery/Sword and Sandal genre, defined as:

“a fantasy subgenre generally characterized by swashbuckling heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. Unlike works of High Fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters. Films often set in Biblical or classical antiquity. Often inferior production values, over-the-top acting, and body-builder characters.”[7]

Other fantasy subgenres worth mentioning but not addressing in this essay are Contemporary Fantasy, Historical/Romantic Fantasy, and the after-life inspired Bangsian Fantasy.

            Before we can target a specific way of evaluating religion in Fantasy films, we need to address the issue of what makes a ‘good fantasy’. It is imperative that we discern which fantasies are worthy of religious/theological evaluation, and which should be cast aside as Hollywood fodder. By comparing and contrasting Eve L. Mullen’s article on Orientalist Commercialization with our two Fantasy subgenres (High Fantasy and ‘Sword and Sandals’) we can see which genre should be ignored and which should be discussed later in this review. Let us first compare the types of High Fantasy and Sword and Sandal films. High Fantasy includes The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter (in a contemporary form). Sword and Sandal includes films from the 50’s, 60’s and 80’s that usually focus on big burly meatheads like Hercules, Samson, Ursus, Goliath, and gladiators. A more modern example of this genre and it’s character/storyline is Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Sindband of the Seven Sea’s (1988). As Eve L. Mullen critiques in her article, Hollywood takes such films as Kundun, Little Buddha, and Seven Years in Tibet and completely commercializes them. Hollywood takes the Dali Lama’s religion hostage, and portrays it in a way to appeal to moviegoer’s tastes and pockets. Fantasy is guilty of this as well, but not entirely. Mullen’s critique can be applied to the ‘Sword and Sandal’ genre, which was mainly devised to ‘hi-jack’ fantasy into poorly mass-produced, macho-man action movies. Films such as Conan and Sindband do not reflect the complicated storytelling and religion addressing power of High Fantasy, and for this reason the ‘Sword and Sandal’ genre should be treated with as much respect as a GI Joe action figure. Due to this mass-consumerism approach to the ‘Sword and Sandal’ genre, we will ignore it as we discuss High Fantasy and it’s religious undertones.

One other comparison to point out between Mullen’s article and Fantasy is that as Americans we have “suffered feelings of helplessness amidst escalating violence,” and this may be the root of our fascination with High Fantasy. This same situation could offer a psychological explanation for the recent success of fantasy films. Like the Orientalist films, the public enjoys the fantasy settings in film because 1) They allow us to temporarily leave a society in which terrorist fly planes into our buildings and seek to do us harm, 2) Allow us to forget the political issues and leaders of our day (War, terrorism, etc), and 3) Good always win; which may be reflexive on our desire to defeat evil (terrorism) in our modern day society. In addition to these points, films such as The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter clearly discern whose evil and whose good. In The Lord of the Rings, we have a rather dualistic approach to good vs. evil, and can clearly associate the role of Sauron and the Orc’s to Osama and his terrorists. In the case of Harry Potter we can associate Voldemort and his ‘pure-blood’ wizard minions to Osama and terrorists as well. In both films, we can relate to a leader and his associates seeking to disrupt the gentle balance of the fantasy worlds (whether The Shire, Hogwortz, or New York).

We have already begun to address theological issues such as evil, yet how should we go about this? Should we take a theological approach and base ourselves on the proclaimed-truths of one religion over another, or should we seek a universal religious net in which to draw comparisons? We’ve determined ‘good fantasy’ as High Fantasy and not Sword and Sandals fantasy. Now we shall review and respond to John Lyden’s analyzing approach.  We first look at Lyden’s view on popular film. He states that, “popular films tend to be lumped together as ideological, largely due to the fact they are created by a major American capitalist industry which is more interested in profit and producing pleasing fantasies than in making challenging and subversive art films.” Although the ‘Sword and Sandals’ productions of the 50’s, 60’s, and 80’s may fall victim to this analysis, it is ignorant to cast it over the fantasy genre in general. As we will learn, high fantasy can be a creative re-explanation of Christianity and the human condition, and we can see the message of love, redemption, and evil in Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. The message of free will and evil as expressed in both films should merit them worth, and shouldn’t fall prey to what he later calls as ‘another form of elitism’. Even though John Lyden states that “the cultural context…disqualify them [films] from being legitimate sources of values,” Our two fantasy films, both made by major corporations, defy this generalization. When viewed through a Christian theological perspective, both can provide “legitimate sources of values,” and values that can stretch a cultural context. Different cultures and generations can relate to the proclaimed truths of Christianity, and allow us to draw these Christian ‘values’ from the films regardless of our culture or generation. This ability to base our understanding of a film, regardless of ones culture or generation, on a specific theological and religious perspective is key to interpreting a film (as I’m sure Clive Marsh will agree). Lyden continues in his article to define his purpose as being “to point out the danger present in ideological criticism if it is the primary method of interpretation.” I disagree with him because I can see the value in interpreting films for the sake of drawing a modern relationship between Christian themes/lessons in films. Clive Marsh is in agreement when he says in his article: “If I myself…choose to commend a particularly Christian theological framework…I believe that such a discussion is likely to be especially fruitful for the exploration of film.” As we will see when we review Marsh’s paper, Lyden’s stance on rejecting a specific ideological/theological framework isn’t effective in evaluating film. John Lyden first provides us with two approaches (one completely rejecting film, the other a sexist and racist hegemonic discourse), that are equally weak, and his ‘third way’ of rejecting an ideology isn’t especially fruitful, as we will see.

Clive Marsh points out this ‘third way’ weakness when he says “for Lyden to take up the position he has, requires that he be more explicit than he has been, about the value system he inhabits, out of which he is able to undertake the task of ‘commending’ and ‘critiquing’.” He supports this claim by pointing to evidence of this in Lyden’s own article, where Lynden uses his Lutheran background to criticize myth. With this, we shall explore Clive Marsh’s approach to Religion in Film, and then adapt it to a quick evaluation of Fantasy films. Marsh also maps out three approaches to evaluating film, with particular emphasis on “theology in critical dialog with culture” (Marsh). Like Marsh, I disagree with the “theology against culture” approach, and favorable side with the third as being “much practical use to people who believe film has something to offer theological discussion,” (Marsh). The main complaint against Lyden’s approach is that his “position requires greater attention to the particularity/ies implied in the dialogical approach to film he adopts.” (Marsh). And where does this lead Marsh? It leaves Marsh to conclude that he “cannot see any other way forward for a scholar of religion than to dabble in theology.” However, Marsh is not talking about using a broad net of religious knowledge, but that “film interpretation—and the religious ‘use’ of film—draws on particular religious and theological traditions in order to do its work.” (Marsh). One needs to ground himself within the “competing truth-claims of different religious traditions,” in order to really generate criticism that is fruitful and easily evaluated. This is not to say that one person’s theological and religious interpretation is superior because of his religion’s claims, but rather implies that comparing these religious interpretations allows us to determine which interpretations are bad, and which are good. We cannot use a general net of religious knowledge, and freely pick and choose, because “it must be challenged by the recognition that ‘religion’ like ‘myth’ is not reducible and exists only in particular, exasperatingly concrete and diverse forms.” (Marsh). That leaves individuals to “undertake the task of religious interpretation” by “draw[ing] on very particular traditions.” (Marsh).

Once again, we must remember that in no ways is Marsh saying that one religious interpretation of film (say interpreting all films with a Christian perspective) is better than all others. On the contrary, certain are merely more effective than others given a certain film. In the case of The Chronicles of Narnia, it would be extremely foolish to try and examine it with a Buddhist (or Egyptian) perspective. Is this to say Buddhism shouldn’t be used in interpreting film? No. Certain films warrant a Buddhist evaluation, while a film such as The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, should be handled by Christian scholars and theologians. A reason for this is that The Chronicles of Narnia is a film with clearly Christian inspired themes with a Christian apologetic author, and to borrow from Marsh, it would be “especially fruitful”.

We can see this usefulness in comparing our two Fantasy films with two he mentions. The first film he discusses is the “glaringly un-theological character” in Shirley Valentine. This same observation can be made in our Harry Potter film. Upon observation, Harry Potter would be a last place you would find Christianity; much like Shirley Valentine. Harry Potter has often been mistaken for being evil in its use of witchcraft. Yet when one begins to dig deep into Harry’s character, one begins to find deep Christian themes: such as love, redemption, temptation, and sacrifice. One of the leading issues made obvious throughout the Harry Potter films is self-sacrifice for a higher good (Johnston)[8].  In the first movie Ron sacrifices himself during a chess match. In the second movie Dobby (the house-elf) risks his life protecting Harry. In the third film Sirius Black escapes Azkaban to protect Harry. The fourth example of self-sacrifice is in the fourth film where Harry fights Voldemort over Cedric’s body (Johnston). This self-sacrificial theme is the climax of the biblical narrative, and is all too familiar of the loving sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. For an individual to claim that the Harry Potter series is blasphemy or demonic, is to degrade that very same message spoken and acted out by Jesus Christ.  When using Marsh’s approach, we can see beyond the child-appealing storyline of Harry Potter, and begin to see the rich lessons of Salvific Love (Johnston), and how the Harry Potter films retell that old story of someone sacrificing and laying their life down for others (as seen in Harry Potter’s mom). As we see in Harry Potter, evaluating the film from a specific theology (Christianity in our case) can yield the fruits of the gospel’s message in a fantasy and modernized setting.

Another observation done in Marsh’s analytical style is in evaluating The Lord of the Rings and The Shawshank Redemption. Knowing that J.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and with the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Redemption’ in the titles of both movies, we can see these as being “film which invites a ‘religious’ reading of some kind.” (Marsh). Being a practicing protestant, and knowing J.R. Tolkien, I can rightfully assume that evaluating the film in a ‘Christian light’ can be especially fruitful. In a way, as I first quoted, I may find the evaluation to be a ‘religious step’ or even a religious experience. After all, the basis of a relationship with God is in loving Him, and one way this is done is through knowing more about Him. In a way, evaluating The Lord of the Rings can be a form of ‘worship’ or love, in that we’re exploring new ways in understanding Him. Here’s an example of Marsh’s method as done with my Christian theological and religious background. First I could ask myself what can The Lord of the Rings teach Christians about free will and evil? Throughout the films, it is obvious that evil and free will play a heavy role. As we find in the film, two sets of characters can tell us the results of allowing evil to corrupt our will, and the results of following evil. Our first characters are the Orcs. When you follow their storyline, you learn that the Orcish characters used to be beautiful elves, and when they chose to follow Melkor (a fallen ‘Holy One’, think fallen Angel/Satan), they were hideously enslaved and transformed. Their willful decision to choose evil over good left them with a tortured and suffering state reminiscent of those who willfully reject God and destine themselves to hell. We shall define sin as rejecting God’s will for our next example. The Nazguls, also known as the Ringwraiths, were nine men who were given rings of power, but later allowed power to corrupt them. This reminds us of the teaching of Paul in chapter 6 of Romans, where he asks us whether we wish to be slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.  God gave us freewill when He made us in His image, and breathed His life into us. Just as the nine humans were given power, so were we given power in the form of free will. In the Nazgul’s and Orc’s case, they choose evil (Melkor) over goodness (aka God), and the result of their free-willed selfish decision was their eternal servitude to this evil. In addition to the issue of enslavement to evil, The Lord of the Rings forces us to ask whether evil is a physical force (such as Sauron’s army) which we must battle on a daily basis, or whether our own free will and choices are evil. This couldn’t be made any more evident than in the power of the ring. The ring given to Frodo is the true representation of evil. Although we have a physical face to evil (Sauron), evil is still immensely present in Frodo’s ability to control the ring (aka his will), and the ring’s seductive advances of promising power. Characters ranging from Bilbo, Gandalf, and Frodo feel the temptation of the ring (also could be interpreted as the temptation of sin), and where these three successfully reject the ring’s seduction, one character, Boromir, allows the ring to control him, leading to his death. The ring leading to death if not rejected, can be compared with Jesus Christ’s teaching that choosing sin leads to death. This is an example of how we can interpret Religion in Fantasy Film using Marsh’s approach.

In conclusion, I stand in agreement with Clive Marsh’s closing remarks: First, that “we are indebted to John Lyden for spelling out the approaches he sees at work in the use of film in religious studies.” Lynden’s ideas helped spawn our own connections, conclusions, and remarks, which lead us to strengthen our own interpretation of religion and fantasy films. Second, that “such conversations must acknowledge that theology is necessary within religious studies, and that some understanding of the role of religion/religions is essential for theologians.” This is expressed through the connections made between Christianity’s claims and ideas as found in the Fantasy films we discussed (Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter). Without Christianity, we would have a problem effectively addressing and evaluating the two films. Third, “all interpreters of film have to be more upfront about the baggage they necessarily bring to their interpretative task.” This does not mean that our analysis of fantasy films through a Christian lens is a “thinly-veiled autobiography,” or that it’s an ignorant one-sided approach. Rather, it’s an honest hermeneutical-inspired interpretation of film, which can be compared with other ideological interpretations to determine “which ideologies are the least bad, and why.” For these reasons, we can conclude that Marsh’s approach to evaluating religion in High Fantasy films yields the ‘ripest fruits’.  We can also conclude that High Fantasy can act as a window to our modern age in redressing and retelling arcane religious stories in vibrant colorful language.

 

Works Cited and Footnotes Below

Jesus of Crossan, Evaluation of Islam and Violence, Judaism and Christian ‘Fulfillment’

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Alvarez

REL2011 Religion Analysis

April 23, 2007

Religion Analysis Final 

1.  Dominic Crossan has radically challenged the traditional or “dogmatic” view of Jesus of Nazareth (the historical Jesus) in the light of historical criticism.  Dominic Crossan has further argued that this Jesus is both a critic of the tradition he inherited and implies that he would be a critic of the way the Christian tradition has interpreted him for most of the last 2000 years.  How would you evaluate Crossan’s interpretation of Jesus in the light of your reading and the lectures, and what impact this interpretation would have on the traditional picture of Jesus?  That is, does the interpretation of Jesus according to the standards of critical history Crossan presents reduce Jesus to a level that would make him insignifcant or unworthy of the Christian’s devotion and commitment, or is this more “historical” (or “minimalist”) Jesus more interesting and compelling after he is divested of the dogmatic trappings that have shaped and dominated our interpretation of Jesus for over eighteen hundred years?  In other words, can or should we still be Christians if Crossan were right?

2.  There are people today, particularly since 9/11, who are inclined to believe Islam to be a religion of violence, war, and hatred, and hence not a religion worthy of being believed in or followed. After studying Islam in this course, and perhaps visiting a mosque, do you believe this common perception of Islam is accurate?  Is Islam a religion worth believing in?  What does Islam have to offer?  Give your reasons.

3.  Many Christians believe that Judaism finds its fulfillment in Christianity.  Obviously, Jews do not agree and believe that Judaism stands independently and quite apart from Christianity on its own.  From what you have learned about Judaism, do Jews have good reasons for holding on to their faith and not considering it merely as a preparation for Christianity.  Furthermore, what reasons might Christians have, given the study of Christianity and religion in general in the last two hundred years, for questioning and revising the standard view of Judaism as an “old” and obsolete covenant that should have evolved or been absorbed into Christianity after the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth.  In other words, does Judaism stand on its own or does it need Christianity to “complete” or “fulfill it”?

Essay 1) Jesus of Crossan

            The question of Jesus’ divinity has been an issue hotly debated. Whether in scholastic, philosophical, to theological circles, the issue on whether Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and whether he was, is extremely important to the Christian faith. If Jesus never claimed divinity, and never atoned humanities sins, then where does it leave both Jesus and Christianity? Dominic Crossan is addressing this very question as he attempts to challenge the traditional and ‘dogmatic’ view of Jesus in his book Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. Now to coin the title revolutionary is interesting, since scholars have attempted to define Jesus in light of historical criticism for a while now. Does this historical criticism of Dominic Crossan leave us with an individual worthy of praise, and what effect does his historical critique have on the Christian faith in modern days?

            Now it’s easy to agree with him on one thing: if Jesus walked into a modern day mega church, or a gold plated cathedral, he would be puzzled and maybe even shocked at it’s wealth. Besides that, the rest of his arguments are a bit stretched. To call them historical is, in a sense, deceiving. Just as he claims the disciples have  “prophecy historized, and not history memorized”, so is he guilty of this (Pg 152)[1]. He skillfully weaves modern day social attitudes to explain all actions of history, and crafts the character of Jesus within his understanding of history and his opinions. The key to understanding and critiquing Crossan is in finding his world-view and opinion. By finding these views, we can begin to piece together how it is he interprets Jesus. After evaluating his view of Jesus of Nazareth, and his personal opinion where does his views leave the Christian faith?

Dominic Crossan uses a three-vectored approach towards the study of such historical claims as Jesus’ life-story. “The first vector is cross-cultural anthropology”, which is based on “what is common across history to all types of the same ecological and technological type.” (Pg XII). “The second vector is Greco-Roman and especially Jewish history,” (Pg XII). The third vector is “the literary or textual,” and is the vector I find myself most at odds with Crossan. Here he truly imbues his own opinion with his own interpretation, even though I credit him for exposing some remarkable similarities between Jesus, James, and Moses. (Pg XII, Pg 5, 10). Dominic’s view on Jesus can be shortly summed up as a “peasant Jewish cynic,” (Pg 198). In his book, he completely tosses aside any miracles or divinity, and leaves us with no reasoning on whether divine acts are possible. Rather he makes the presupposition that all acts of miracles and divine healings are not possible in a physical sense, but are really things to be interpreted. In regards to his virgin birth, Dominic says “I understand the virginal conception…to be a confessional state about Jesus’ status and not a biological statement about Mary’s Body,” (Pg 23). He explains “the divine origins of Jesus…just as fictional or mythological as those of Octavius,” (Pg 26-27). He uses this perspective to address such issues as Jesus’ healings and exorcisms. His personal opinion is shown in healings where he “presume[s] that Jesus, who did not and could not cure that disease or any other one, healed the poor man’s illness by refusing to accept the disease’s ritual uncleanness and social ostracization,” (Pg 82). Again, this personal opinion imbued in historical interpretation is seen where he says that he “do[es] not believe there are personal supernatural spirits who invade our bodies from outside, and replace or jostle with our own personality,” (Pg 85).  One last pinnacle act of Jesus’ divinity was his resurrection and raising of the dead, which Crossan casts aside as prophetic interpretations by Paul and other disciples.

            Besides some ridiculous claims, such as comparing the twelve disciples and Jesus to bandits and thus proving the twelve never existed, his personal views and interpretations are staggering in light to Christian faith (Pg 108-109). We must honestly ask ourselves whether Jesus merit’s the praise and worship found in Christianity. Using Crossan’s model, we’re left with a Jesus who couldn’t heal, exorcise, or resurrect besides in a watered down ‘political’ sense. Crossan exposes Jesus as a mere lovey-touchy peasant, who would deserve as much worship we credit to political leaders. He interprets the kingdom of God as a community of shared healings and eating; which is a Marxist like society without any form of discrimination and hierarchies (Pg 113). Although Jesus did make such interesting political claims, where is the rest of the bible? Can we merely have ‘faith’ in explaining his acts, miracles, and message as the disciple’s exaggerations?

Can Crossan completely toss aside everything divine or miraculous as a political related message? If Jesus never physically healed people, why were mere peasants chasing after him in crowds? We’re they craving the hippy lifestyle? What of the blind and the deaf? Did he merely walk up to touch them, and thus in a political sense restored their ‘dignity’ instead of restoring true sight? Why didn’t any early Jews or Christians (who knew Jesus) correct the disciple’s divine interpretation of Jesus? Are we to interpret all his events as merely political? If so we’re left with a Jesus along the ranks of other religious leaders, who can not heal us of our sins or redeem our souls, but rather teach us how to behave. Crossan’s Jesus is his own invention, and one that is no more worthy of a religious movement than Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa.

Essay 2) Islam

            After the awful events of 9/11, the radical sector of Islam has been in the spotlight of world events. This awful event, fueled by political and religious zeal, was one that completely turned the world’s attention on the religion of Islam. Post 9/11, people are more inclined to believe that Islam is a religion of violence, even though it claims to truly be a religion of peace. People perceive Islam as religiously justifying violence, war, and hatred. Is this true? Is it fair to assume that in its nature Islam is violent? What does Islam have to offer, and is it worthy of being believed and followed?

            Arabic Muslim countries have done their part in sharing knowledge with the world. Whether its famous Arabic astronomy (stars), Arabic mathematics (algebra), or chemical expressions (alchemy, alcohol), Muslim nations have a strong scientific history. Besides fantastic scientific contributions, what does Islam offer? To first understand the threat Islam may or may not pose, we must understand the religion. Islam arrived as a divinely inspired message through the prophet Muhammad. This message revolved around a belief in one God, and as Sura 112 declares: “Say: God is one; God is eternal; He did not beget and is not begotten, and no one is equal to Him,” (Koran).[2] With God’s oneness in place, Islam teaches that “the duty of human beings is to surrender to this unique, omnipotent God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” and “to surrender from the bottom of one’s heart, with one’s whole soul and one’s entire mind,” (Schimmel Pg 14).[3] The word Islam itself means, “complete surrender to the Divine will; and the one who practices such surrender is a Muslim,” (Pg 14).  Islam takes into account the prophetic message of God as found in the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Koran, and credits Muhammad as God’s final prophet. The religion is also structured into five pillars that make up the bulk of Islam (faith, ritual prayer, the alms tax, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca) (Pg 34-35).

            At first we cannot see an exact threat in Islam’s teaching. It seems a rather devoted worship to the oneness of God. However, that changes when we address certain claims made by Islam. One of these claims directly threatens Judaism and Christianity. This is where Muhammad claims, “the version revealed to him contained the true and real text of these stories and that the faith preached by him was much older than that professed” by Jews and Christians (Pg 16). Here we began to receive Islam’s critique on the Jewish and Christian’s ‘corruption’ of the message of God. From this point, we can begin to see the foundation for a conflict between the great religions, and foreshadow events to come. In addition to this, we can foreshadow conflict by studying the nature of Muhammad’s early military conquest, and the battles fought against Jewish and other tribes. Towards the end of Muhammad’s life, his teachings have parted from their original “eschatological threats” to “injunctions and rules for the political and social structure of the nascent community,” (Pg 17). Here, Islam takes a political nature, and turns it’s devotion of God towards an Islamic legal and governmental system. Here is where our problem arises.

            Some even argue that Islam, in its nature, is not democratically friendly. This is probably seen most visually in current Islamic governments; such as Shari’ah law and the Iran. In these nations and their interpretations of Islam, it is completely just to stone a homosexual or adulterer, yet it’s punishable to speak against the prophet Muhammad and Allah. If you’ve ever watched a video of the savagery of stoning a woman for claims of adultery, you’ll understand where we can perceive there to be an issue with Islamic law and human rights. To be fair, are these crimes committed in the name of Allah truly Islamic mandates, or are they the twisting of clerical teaching? Where do the lessons of various Imams and clerics conflict with teachings of the Koran, and if Islam is (as it says) a religion of peace, why is there such success in the radical Islamic movement? Are Islamic terrorist completely wrong in their interpretation of the Koran, or does the Koran contain enough scripture for them to justify their horrendous actions?

            Are Islamic terrorist merely emulating the early military conquests of Muhammad and his successors in the form of ‘jihad’, or are they completely mistaken? Sadly, this isn’t a question we non-Muslim’s can address. The issue of whether the Koran is misinterpreted in the form of Shari’ah law and clerics isn’t something outsiders of Islam can comment on. The issue does not remain in the hands of religious scholars or politicians, but in the hands of Muslims themselves. They are the ones who must decide whether such Islamic punishments are really Islamic, and whether they’re characteristic of Allah. It is up to those within the Islamic camps to address the issue of ‘runaway Islam’, and to address the issue of those radicals who have hijacked Islam’s ‘peaceful’ nature. Upon this success, we may more comfortably conclude that Islam really is a religion of peace, but until then we are left asking ourselves whether Islamic radicals are making the mistake of interpreting Islam, or whether their interpretation really holds ground.

Essay 3) Judaism

            As a new covert to Christianity (since Feb. 2, 2005), I’ve often been taught that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. These lessons usually credit Judaism’s main goal as preparing the way for the Messiah. As chapter 40 of Isaiah puts it, “prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God”[4] (Is. 40:3), and I perceived Judaism as preparing ‘a highway’ for Jesus’ arrival. I had perceived the Jewish religion to be rather ‘obsolete’, since it’s role in preparing the path for the Messiah was complete through Jesus, but that changed this semester. Some new Christian friends began to teach be that the Jewish people had a special relationship and role with God. This special relationship that God had with the Israelites, as revealed in the Old Testament scripture, was something special and unique.

The word ‘old’ in Old Testament itself is deceiving, and evident that even in its Christian title are the Jewish texts perceived as outdated. As I’ve learned in my Religion Analysis course and through friends, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Leviticus 11:45 hints to the unique relationship the Israelites and Jews have to God, for as it says, “therefore be holy because I am holy,” (Lev. 11:45)[5]. However, this unique relationship stretches beyond Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s original covenant. After the coming of Jesus and Christianity, Judaism has done an incredible job of organizing itself. Under the pressure of mass exodus, Christian persecution, and Arab governance, Judaism has neatly redefined its temple-centered nature. Without the ability to make the temple its religious center, pharisaic Judaism evolved into the rabbinic form, allowing it a flexibility that greatly helped its survival. Rabban Johanan, and his group of scholars (Tannaim), paved the way for individuals like Rabban Gamaliel II to re-establish the important Jewish court known as the Sanhedrin (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 41)[6]. In addition to the re-established Sanhedrin, and the transfer of temple duties to the synagogue, the oral tradition of Jewish law and teaching was written down, which formed the Mishnah (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 43). This text divided the extensive oral tradition into six orders (Zeraim, Mo’ed, Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohorot), which helped preserve the Jewish faith. In addition to the re-established Sanhedrin, the synagogue, and the Mishah, the Jewish people collected several laws, religious texts, sciences, teachings, and four of the Mishnah’s into the authoritative text of the Talmud. With the creation of the Talmud came it’s use as the center for Judaic studies, which resulted with the yeshivot (academies), kollelim (higher academies), and batei ha-midrash (houses of study) (Cohn-Sherbok, Pg 49). All these factors show the resilience of Judaism, as well as its success as a religion to organize under several hostile environments (exp: post Christianity).

In addition to the adaptive organization of post temple Judaism was the extensive and successful tradition of Jewish philosophy. This can be seen in early Jewish philosophy, as well as medieval and post-enlightenment schools of Jewish thought. One prominent piece of Jewish philosophy was Saadiah Gaon’s Emunot ve-Deot. It “is generally regarded as the first great Jewish philosophical classic,” and addressed issues ranging from reason, knowledge, and the soul, as well as responses to Karaite, Zoroastrian, and Muslim critiques (Pg 64-65).  Other prominent Jewish philosophical works included Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, Moses Maimonides’ Dalilat al-Hariain, and the works of Philo (Pg 64, 66-67). In addition to the success of early Jewish philosophy was the success of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment). During the Haskalah, Jewish philosophers like Moses Mendelssohn explained the Jewish religion as ‘to call wholesome and unadulterated idea’s of God and His attributes continuously to the attention of the rest of mankind,” (Pg 95).  These and several other Haskalah philosophers and thinkers helped further define the Jewish religion and it’s followers role in the world, as well as modernizing the Religion with it’s day and age.

By looking at the Jewish religion’s ability to address philosophical and organizational issues apart from Christianity, we can begin to understand how it’s far from being an old and obsolete covenant. As later Jewish philosophers and scholars explain, the Jewish religion still has the role of reflecting “unadulterated and wholesome ideas of God to the attention of humanity,” (Moses Mendelssohn, Ph 95). As the later thinker Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) explains in The Nineteen Letters on Judaism, the “mission of the Jewish people…is to illustrate to the rest of humanity the joy to be found in obedience,” (Cohn-Sherbok Pg 100). Even in our modern day, Judaism has continued to express remarkable flexibility in its ability to adapt to the modern age in the form of Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism.

Without the arrival of the Davidic Messiah as explained in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and with Christianities failure to bring about the messianic physical kingdom as explain in scripture, modern day Judaism has a compelling case against the ‘suffering servant’ messiah found in Christianity. To add this case with Judaism’s ability to organize under intense conditions, as well as its successful philosophical movements, we can see Judaism as being apart from its Christian neighbor. Although Christians may refer to the Old Testament as ‘old’, “Judaism has always adapted itself to changing times and circumstances,” and will surely continue to do so (Pg 133).

Works Cited and Footnotes Below 

What Can the Dead Sea Scrolls Tell Us About Christianity?

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Larson

REL3209 Dead Sea Scrolls

April 16, 2007

Dead Sea Scrolls Research Paper

“What Can The Dead Sea Scrolls Tell Us About Christianity?

When people are asked what are the Dead Sea Scrolls, many unfortunately respond with something along the lines of scrolls having to do with Christianity and the New Testament. It’s a common mistake made by individuals, and one that has lead to many controversies and debates. We could blame the media for exposing the scrolls in a Christian manner and for fooling the public, but do parallels with the scrolls contents and early Christianity stop there? Although individuals wrongly assume that the scrolls have to do with Christian writings, it does lead us to ask what the scrolls can tell us about the Christian faith and it’s early history. Although we know they’re obviously writings by an early Jewish sect in the desert, some scholars have made claims that the Qumran sects were actually early Christians. Other scholars have even taken a route to hypothesize that Jesus and John the Baptist were once members of this Qumran community. What has led scholars to make these assumptions? Is it merely a large Christian audience and prospects of financial gains, or is there more to it? For this reason, we will examine the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Qumran community, and how they have paralleled and contributed to the study of early Christianity, John the Baptist, and Jesus of Nazareth.

Not only have scholars made extensive arguments that early Christians wrote some of the scrolls, but they have also made arguments that Jesus and John the Baptist may have been a part of the Qumran settlement.[1] The drama and controversies don’t stop there. In The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, the authors Baigent and Leigh emulate the attempts of The Da Vinci Code to weave a world of mystery and controversy by explaining that the scrolls were even harmful to Christianity. They even go so far as to say that scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls were “handling the spiritual and religious equivalent of dynamite—something that might just conceivably demolish the entire edifice of Christian teaching and belief.”[2] (Baigent 136-137).  Such a bizarre claim has led to this exploration of the similarities and differences that the Qumran community shares with the early Christian movement.

The research started with Lawrence Shiffman’s Reclaiming The Dead Sea Scrolls: The True Meaning For Judaism and Christianity, but his book lack’s in providing the scrolls ‘true meaning’ for Christianity. The title itself was a little deceiving, since Shiffman merely sprinkles references to Christianity throughout the book, and mainly discusses the scrolls relationship with pre-rabbinic Judaism. He shows this bias early on in the text, when in the introduction he states “scholars have finally turned to the Jewish character of the scrolls…to that purpose this book is dedicated.”[3] (Shiffman xxiii). With this bias openly exposed, what other resources might provide some real evaluations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and their impact on early Christianity?

As mentioned previously, some scholars have made the statement that John the Baptist was an Essene in his youth. Although most scholars would consider this to be an extreme stretch, Joseph A Fitzmyer believes that it’s a “plausible hypothesis” that John could “have spent some of his youth as a candidate for membership in or as a member of the Essene community,”[4] (Fitzmyer 19). One of his reasons is how the Gospel of Luke depicts John as someone who “lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.”[5] (Luke, 1:80). The gospel also mentions how a “word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.”⁵ (Luke, 3:2). This leads to a sudden change in John’s life and teaching. Fitzmyer argues that “John then broke off from the Essenes of Qumran, with whom he had been living for some time, to go forth and preach a ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ ⁴ “ (Fitzmyer 19). The reason Fitzmyer interprets the text this way is because John, having been born of a priestly family, was “never portrayed in any of the Gospels as serving in the Jerusalem Temple.” (Fitzmyer 19), and argued that when his elderly parents died, he might have been adopted by the Essenes. Fitzmyer says this because according to Josephus[6], the Essenes (who scholars usually agree fit the Qumran identity), had the practice of adopting other men’s children. Fitzmyer believes that just as Josephus spent some time with the Essenes, so did John. John, not serving Jerusalem’s Temple, would also match the feelings the Qumran community had towards the physical temple in Jerusalem. For these reasons, Fitzmyer doesn’t believe it to be too much of stretch to assume John was educated and adopted by the Essene community.

Fitzmyer continues his argument for John’s role in the Essene community by drawing comparisons between John’s and the Community’s teachings. All four Gospels use Isaiah 40:3 “ A voice of one calling: In the desert, prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”[7], to describe John’s role in the desert. Fitzmyer makes the argument that “that very text of Isaiah is used in an Essene rule book, the Manual of Discipline, to explain why the community is in the desert,” (Fitzmyer 19). The Manuel of Discipline states to “Make ready in the desert the way of [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a path for our God”[8]. Even though John and the Essene’s interpret Isaiah differently, Fitzmyer see this reason for the two being in the desert as more than sheer coincidence. Fitzmyer believes it to be “significant…when considered with the other factors” (Fitzmyer, 20). 

One of these other factors is John’s baptism. With the “little evidence for the existence of proselyte baptism in first century Christianity”, Fitzmyer argues that John’s baptisms are better explained as “ritual washings of the Essene community” (Fitzmyer, 20). Fitzmyer points towards the Qumran settlement’s use of miqva’ot ‘baths’.  The Essene’s Manual of Disciple’s views on ritual washing is similar to John’s baptisms in the sense that both speak of “repenting of their wickedness”[9] as a means of bathing, as well as not needing to be repeated. John came “preaching a baptism of the repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4), and although the Qumran settlement did not perform Christian baptisms, it’s not a stretch to see where the Essene’s teaching could influence John in his baptisms.

Another point along the lines of John’s baptism is that of baptizing with water, but mentioning the “coming baptism of “spirit and fire,”[10] (Fitzmyer 20). Fitzmyer also argues that in the Essene’s Manuel of Discipline, it talks about the themes of “ ‘water,’ ‘holy Spirit,’ ‘Spirit of truth,’ and ‘refining’ as elements of God’s activity as he purges this community.”[11] (Fitzmyer 20).  These elements sound vaguely familiar to those mentioned in Luke 3:16, where the Gospel mentions the “Holy Spirit and with fire.”⁸ After taking John’s time spent in the desert, Isaiah 40:3, Mark 1:3, Josephus’s temporary stay with the Essenes, John’s baptisms, the Essenes ritual washing, and the mention of fire, water, and spirit as found in the Manuel of Discipline and Luke 3:1, Fitzmyer’s suggestion that John may have spent time with the Essenes really gains some weight. Although this is not proof that John was an Essene, it does shed light on the hypothesis that he may have spent some time with them; which would have influenced his career preaching and baptizing. 

With these connections made between John the Baptist, the Essenes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we’re forced to ask ourselves whether Jesus may have been influenced by these three. After all, John the Baptist was the precursor to Jesus’ ministry, and if the Essenes influenced John then it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to assume John’s Essene teachings influenced Jesus. After all, the ending of the Qumran settlement shares the same timeline as the ministry of Jesus. Although we can’t claim that Jesus was an Essene, we can observe that there are certain parallels between the Qumran community, the Essenes, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ministry of Jesus. One of these similarities that cannot be ignored is the Teacher of Righteousness. “French scholar Andre Dupont-Sommer…argued that Jesus appeared to be an ‘astonishing reincarnation’ of the Teacher of Righteousness.” (Flint 322).  Both the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus taught “penitence, poverty, humility, love of one’s neighbor, chastity,” (Flint 322). As Flint and VanderKam point up, the two draw other similarities. Another similarity between the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus is that both are “given authority in matters of teaching and the law, and in the proper understanding of prophetic texts; these functions are also, among others, assigned to Jesus in the Gospels.”[12] (Davies 202).

The overall feeling of the Teacher of Righteousness is one of mystery.

The Damascus Rule states “God…raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them [Qumran sect] in the way of His heart”.[13] This brings sudden images of Jesus of Nazareth, and as Kenneth Hanson points out in The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Untold Story, “his description, his title, and many events in his life, remind us, in a prophetic sense, of the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth.”[14]  

 

Another extremely interesting connection that Kenneth O. Hanson points out is between the Beatitudes of Jesus and a fragment from Qumran Cave 4 (Hanson 140).  In the Beatitudes, we find the following:

3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 
 

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 
 

5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 
 

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 
 

7Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 
 

8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.”[15]

When we take the text from the Cave 4 fragment[16], we find an interesting comparison:

“Blessed is he who speaks truth with a pure heart…

Blessed are those who cling to his statutes…

Blessed are those who rejoice because of her…

Blessed is he who seeks her with pure hands…

Blessed is the man who has attained Wisdom”[17]

Of course, we cannot take these two texts and claim that one inspired Jesus, but both share a remarkable resemblance in their usage of needing ‘a pure heart’ and in their blessings. Kenneth O. Hanson points out another fragment from Cave 4, “called ‘On Resurrection’ or the ‘Messianic Apocalypse’.” (Hanson, 142). As he points out: “The greater context of the passage is missing, but these words are clearly visible on the ancient page: ‘Then he will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the poor announce glad tidings.’ ” (Hanson, 142). Does this sound familiar? When we look back into the Gospel of Luke, we find a strangely similar response that Jesus gives: “…Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”[18] As Hanson adds, “He ministers in ways consistent with common expectations about the Messiah and his work.” (Hanson, 142).

One last comparison between Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus is “the notion of a messianic banquet in 1Qs 6[19] and 1QSa 2 is similar to the Eucharist mentioned in Matthew 26:26-29[20] and 1 Corinthians 11:27-30.” (Davis, 202). Although it was common practice for Jews of the time to bless their meal, it’s an interesting resemblance. Between the Dead Sea Scroll’s Teacher of Righteousness, the expectation of a Messiah, the parallels in authorities and teachings with Jesus, the Beatitudes, the possibility of John having been an Essene, and the messianic banquet, we’re left with an even more appealing case for some type of relationship or parallel between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity.

However the parallels don’t stop there. The early Christian community and the Qumran community also share some of their own similarities. One of the first parallels between the early Christian community and the Qumran sect is the body of twelve.  In Klaus Berger’s book The Truth Under Lock and Key?: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Berger brings up the resemblance between the “twelve men…perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law”[21] (Berger 52). He says “they were thought of as the circle of founders…[and] are characterized as a “precious corner-stone” and a foundation.” (Berger 52). This brings us to the twelve disciples of Jesus, who like the twelve men, were portrayed as perfect.[22] The relationship here is between the two bodies of twelve, where Berger concludes, “the ‘concentric’ renewal of Israel by means of a body of twelve men is found only in Jesus and a few texts from Qumran. Quite certainly there are close points of contact here.” (Berger 52).

Another interesting parallel is how both early Christians and the Qumran sect display a communal lifestyle. In the Community Rule scroll, we discover that the sect has a communal lifestyle where some objects are shared. This is similar to Acts 2:4-5 where Christians gave their properties to the communities. Both sects also displayed signs of celibacy[23] and divorce[24]. In addition to the similarity of their lifestyle, was their language. As Phillip Davies points out, “Certain texts from both groups speak of the ‘children of light’, the righteousness of God, works of the Law, lawlessness, light and darkness, Belial[25], … the human temple of God … ‘the many’[26]” (Davies 202).

Not only are there some interesting theories for Paul being an Essene, but also now we have a hefty load of parallels between Jesus of Nazareth, the early Christian Community, and the Qumran sect. We first observed John’s time spent in the desert, then Isaiah 40:3, Mark 1:3, Josephus’s temporary stay with the Essenes, John’s baptisms, the Essene’s ritual washing, and the mention of fire, water, and spirit as found in the Manuel of Discipline and Luke 3:1. We then observed the Dead Sea Scroll’s Teacher of Righteousness, the expectation of a Messiah, the parallels in authorities and teachings with Jesus, the Beatitudes and scroll fragment, and the messianic banquet. We finally pointed out the parallels between the Christian community’s twelve disciples, the Qumran’s body of twelve, the two sect’s communal lifestyle, their shared language, and their shared views on such issues as celibacy and divorce. When we take into account the bizarre similarities between John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, the early Christian community, the Qumran Settlement, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we’re given good reason to conclude that they had some type of relationship. Although we cannot conclude that the Qumran sect directly influenced Jesus, John, and the Christian community, we can assume that after the provided evidence, there’s strong reason to suggest an indirect relationship.

Whether we’re left putting together current scripture and scrolls, or theorizing over new parallels and relationships, we may never know what relationship (or lack of) the Qumran Sect may have had with Christianity. We can conclude that the Scrolls still need further study, and that they illuminate a lot about the Jewish roots of Christianity. However, who knows what un-translated Dead Sea Scrolls may offer, and what possibilities new archeological discoveries may hold for the mysterious relationship between Christianity and the Qumran Sect.

Works Cited and Footnotes Below

Iran’s Theocratic Attempt at Hybrid Democracy

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Friedheim

CPO2002 Comparative Politics

April 10, 2007

Iran’s Theocratic Attempt at Hybrid Democracy

“Is Iran inventing a unique, new and Islamic form of democracy?”

 

Outline

 

I.      Opening

a.     “I walked up to my friend Hani, who happens to be an Iranian Native, and gave him a quick quiz on his opinion about Iranian government. His response to my first question concerning his opinion on the Iranian politicians was clean and simple: Crap…”

b.     Freedom of Religion, and it’s relationship to our own democracy…

II.    Body

a.     What defines a Democracy?

                                               i.     “Democracy is based partly on the two principles that all individuals are equal (especially before the law), and that people have inalienable natural rights (like right to choose religion).”

                                             ii.     Litmus Test (Book)

1.     Selection of highest public offices is on the basis of free and fair elections.

2.     Political parties are free to organize, present candidates for office, and compete in elections. Right to criticize.

3.     Accountability of elected officials.

4.     Civil and Political rights. Key state officeholders. Free assembly, conscience, privacy, and expression (criticize)

5.     Political system contains judiciary independent of Executive and Legislature.

b.     What defines a Theocracy?

                                               i.     A state governed by the clergy, who rule on the grounds that they are the only interpreters of God’s will and law.

c.     Compare and contrast Iran with our defined term of Democracy.

                                               i.     Elections

                                             ii.     Political Parties

                                            iii.     Accountability

                                            iv.     Civil + Political Rights

                                             v.     Independent Judiciary

d.     Conclude whether or not Iran is a Democracy.

                                               i.     Arguments for it being a Democracy

                                             ii.     Arguments against it being a Democracy

III.  Conclusion

 

I walked up to my friend Hani, who happens to be an Iranian Native, and gave him a quick quiz on his opinion about Iranian government. His response to my first question concerning his opinion on the Iranian politicians was clean and simple: Crap. It took me as a shock. It was a brute answer, and I initially suspected a lack of patriotism. After we sat down and continued our discussion, I learned that this clearly wasn’t the case. He was raised, as with most kids in Iran, as a Muslim. Upon coming here to visit some family he converted into Christianity. He then had to force himself to scramble for a student visa, because if he were to return to Iran the government would have him killed or jailed for his conversion out of Islam. It was here that my study of Iran begins.

In this essay, I will attempt to conclude whether the Islamic Republic of Iran is a unique, new Islamic form of democracy, or a theocracy in sheep’s clothing. I have developed a litmus test for determining whether or not Iran may be considered democratic, and will compare and contrast these democratic ideals with the state of Iran.

Our litmus test is based off of five matters that make up a democracy. We define a democracy as a system of government that contain five central issues. The first thing that makes a democracy is the selection of highest public officials on the basis of free and fair elections. The second is the existence of political parties who are free to organize, present candidates for office, compete in elections and the right to criticize the government. The third is the accountability of elected officials. The fourth is civil and political rights, being able to run for key state offices, free assembly, conscience, privacy, expression, and ability to criticize the government. The last point that makes up a democracy is a political system that contains a judiciary independent of executive and legislative powers. By reviewing how each of these exists in the state of Iran, we will conclude whether or not it’s a new form of democracy.

Our first issue is that of election of the highest officials. Within the Islamic public there is an elected leader, the President, yet he yields power to an even greater leader cleverly called, the Leader. This Leader contains ruling power than spans control of all three branches of government, as well as the presidential candidacy itself. This is where we first run into a terrible problem: The Leader isn’t elected by the people. The Leader is elected by an Assembly of Experts, who are partially elected by the people.  Khomeini’s doctrine of jurist’s guardianship basically put the government and all it’s officials in the hands and will of the Leader. On top of this, the Leader chooses the candidates for the presidency, Majles, preachers (Imams), director of television-radio network, heads of the Foundation of Oppressed, and other key positions. It is this control over presidential candidates, elected officials, and the lack of direct election of the Leader that fails our first look at Iranian ‘democracy’.  

Our second democratic issue was the existence of political parties who are free to organize, present candidates for office, compete in elections, and criticize the government. Now in theory Iran has the right to organize and express, but once again the powers of the Leader get in the way. The Leader, as well as his Expediency Council, can deem whether political parties and candidates are “Islamic” enough, and ban parties and candidates they find unacceptable. To start, Iran has banned parties such as The Liberation Movement, The National Front, The Mojahedin, The Fedayin, and the Tudeh, all because they were a threat to the ‘Islamic’ nature of Iran (Kesselman 610). We’ll see this ‘un-Islamic’ issue popping up a lot in the clerical controlled government. In addition the “June 2005 presidential election was undermined by the Council of Guardians’ rejection of all but 8 of the 1,014 candidates who registered to run.” (Freedom House 1). The cleric-controlled government has a history of banning rival candidates and the Leader’s ultimate power to reject candidates infringes on the democratic right to organize into political parties and run for positions, which is key to any and every democracy.

            Our third democratic issue is the accountability of high-ranking officials. We once again, run into the same problem: The Leader. Since he is partially and indirectly elected by the people, we cannot truly say he’s accountable to them. He works as a representation of the ‘12^th imam’ in the state, and is accountable really only to God. This is troublesome, since this Leader is basically in control of the entire government. His power to reject and appoint candidates for nearly all Judicial, Legislative, and Executive positions puts the choosing over a list of the Leader’s favorites. It’s a lose-lose situation, since it completely chokes out the opposition by easily branding them ‘un-Islamic’. The only real check and balance we have here is that the Assembly of Experts elects the Leader, but in turn they’re all clerics. As former president Rafsanjani’s daughter, Ms. Hashemi said: “When there are only clerics on the Assembly of Experts, that means that leadership belongs only to the clerics,” (Jehl 1). Once again, who are the clerics really accountable to? The Leader and Allah.

            The fourth democratic idea here is civil and political rights. Here’s another area where Iran severely lacks in. In theory, Iranian citizens are protected and allowed to worship, collect, and are given free speech. Yet Iran still carries out death sentences to apostates (250 Baha’is, 400 Atheist [Kesselman 592]), and others who convert out of Islam. It also openly states that the value of Muslim men is greater than women, and non-Muslims. This is seen in Muslim men’s evidence being worth twice as much as women’s. Shari’a law allows Retribution Law, which can result in death penalties for gays, stoning for adulterers, live burials, and finger amputations. Also, expression is all limited in terms of what is ‘appropriate’. Even the Internet is censored, as “Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, announced that “anyone who disseminates information aimed at disturbing the public mind through computer systems” would be jailed.” (Freedom House 1). The “conservative-controlled judiciary closed more than 100 reformist newspapers and jailed hundreds of liberal journalists and activists”, all on grounds of people being ‘un-Islamic’ (Freedom House 1). In addition, the existence of a Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance that “must approve publication of all books and inspects foreign books prior to domestic distribution.” (Freedom House 1) cripples un-Islamic speech.  These efforts have lead to the rating of a six in political rights and civil liberties by Freedom House, and the title of the country being ‘not free’ (Freedom House 1).

            Our last democratic idea is a judiciary separate of the executive and legislative branch. Like the rest of the government, the judiciary is Islamized. It contains an appeals system, and a state court hierarchy, but the state has the power to appoint and dismiss all judges.  Judges have been dismissed to seminary-educated men, which only empower the clerical regime and not the people. The clergy run courts seem to be more in favor of protecting law and Islam than those rights of the people.

            Democracy is based partly on the two principles that all individuals are equal and that people have inalienable natural rights (Kesselman 592).  In comparing our five democratic ideas, we find Iran failing these two principles and our litmus test, which leads us to conclude that Iran is a Theocracy in ‘Sort of Democratic’ clothing. (Amir 1).

 Works Cited Below